the redemption of Israel

[Iconoclast]

Again:

Concerning your first statement:

It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

When the Lord provided the first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, blood was shed.
How much did Adam and Eve understand about the atoning sacrifice of Christ at that time? (I have asked these questions before).

When Abel offered sacrifices to the Lord (and Cain rebelled) how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did they understand?

When Noah sacrificed unto the Lord how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?

Salvation has always been by faith. Abraham was justified by faith.
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

We are justified by faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Salvation hasn't changed. We are saved by faith.
One can only be saved by faith if it is faith in the revelation they have received at that time. Adam through Israel put their faith in Jehovah, not the revealed Christ, the second person of the trinity that shed his blood on the cross, as we did. They did not have that revelation.

Salvation is by faith.

Your second statement:
You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
--False, and a red herring.
The red herring is dispensationalism which has nothing to do with this.
You brought up the Church; you brought up the redeemed in the OT. You brought up the fact the DC said there is a difference. If there is a difference it must be proven why and how. Your statement implies there is a difference between the Church and the OT saints. Don't say you didn't bring it up. No one but you and Icon said anything about dispensationalism. We had to defend against it. You (and Icon) derailed the thread.
--You can call this the central tenet of dispensationalism; you are entitled to your opinion. That is not what I believe. Of course many of you who have come out of hyper-dispensational churches have some pretty weird doctrines that you attribute to dispensationalism as I am finding out. You attribute a political movement "Zionism" to dispensationalism, which is ludicrous. Never heard of such a thing. But this is what I find out from my opponents of "what I am supposed to believe." Hilarious!

You guys want to tell me what I believe, and yet don't have a clue. Amazing!

Anyone can do a Google search.....some of us have lived through some of these teachings which are still offered......revmac knows the accepted view and stands like a man and defends his pov.

If you profess some novelty that is not the classic teaching.....then start a new thread where you can reveal your new insights.....you can show exactly what is the same and what is different....
Once you do that we will then let you know where we agree and do not agree.

That also will remove this shifting all around the world on each item.

 

[Darrell C]

So apparently I have a new talent, derailing my own thread, by pointing out what the OP, who is me, intended this thread to be.
I guess I am not allowed the luxury of pointing out what my own post is about.

Sure you do, just don't get offended if someone is able to explain to you where your error lies.

Let me refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

Now, the first thing I will point out, which can be seen in the other thread, is that this statement was made in order to point out that one does not have to be a Dispensational in order to understand that there are different Ages in Scripture. The primary point is readily seen...eternal redemption was obtained through the Work of the Cross. Not before.

That was not buried in the other thread...it was ignored.

My first thought when I saw this statement was that, what was being communicated was that no Jews were ever saved by the Blood of Christ, and I would hope we would all agree that it is an incorrect view, especially given that all the Apostles were Jews.

And that was your response.

And despite being told that was not the statements intent...you kept on saying it, and still say it in this thread, as though somehow you missed my direct correction of yet another false argument based on your own inability to understand what is even being discussed. If you want to continue presenting false implications, I will be more than glad to import those exchanges to show where this was addressed.

It is ironic that now you are trying to change the OPs intent to suit your friend's disruption.

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

Also humorous that this struck a nerve enough for you to bring it up in your thread, when you made such a fuss about the distinction of dispensational and dispensation, trying to imply these are exclusive from each other.

And I did not do a detailed response for your sake, and directed focus on the statement, but since we're here...

...you really shouldn't be trying to get to the bottom of Eternal Redemption simply by using verses that have redeemed or redeem as it's root. The word is just used in too many contexts that have nothing to do with eternal redemption through Christ.

Now, OP, who is complaining that I (and DHK) have "morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism, let's see what the OP really said in the OP...

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

The truth is...no you don't.

You want to prove a point, which you cannot prove.

You cannot make saved and redeemed mean the same thing in every context, or in every Age, and you cannot find Eternal Redemption in the Old Testament Economies at all.

To my knowledge there has been no response to my address of the OP, but I will review it before I finish this post.

In the meantime, let's see the participation of your partners in crime:

blessedwife318

I noticed that statement by DC and planned to comment or start a thread. Responding as simply as possible:

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is Biblically incorrect. Error begets error, begets error, begets grievous error, and eventually begets heresy.

I have no idea what DC was thinking when he wrote that heretical statement or if he was thinking. Anyhow, if a person is not redeemed and reconciled to GOD by Jesus Christ then they are eternally lost. That is my belief and I believe that is what Scripture teaches.

My advice: Forget about DC and enjoy your vacation. Don't know whether I mentioned it or not but I have a grand niece who lives in Scottsdale. She is married with one child, a boy. Haven't met her husband yet!
__________________

He planned to respond or start a thread, and here we have a thread with that statement in focus...so why doesn't he respond?

Because his heart is so entrenched in his hatred for...

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is Biblically incorrect

...he is utterly useless in a theological discussion.

Where did I say anything about pre-trib dispensationalism?

Here's another:

Everyone who makes it to heaven, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will have to have had the shed blood of Jesus Christ cleanse them, blot out their sins.

Where in my post have I affirmed your confusion about my statement and inability to comprehend the difference between redemption and eternal redemption as it was clearly outlined in my address of the OP?

DHK addresses the real "point" you are trying to make, lol...

Originally Posted by SovereignGrace View Post
Everyone who makes it to heaven, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will have to have had the shed blood of Jesus Christ cleanse them, blot out their sins.

When God provided the very first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, and blood was shed on their behalf, how much of Christ's atoning sacrifice did Adam and Eve understand?
When Abel came before the Lord and offered of the flock that he had, an animal to the Lord, how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?
How much of the atoning sacrifice did Cain know that he was rebelling against when he refused to do so?

The simple point made here is to illustrate the very point you and your buddies keep dodging.

I have asked the same questions numerous times yet you...start a thread based on incomprehension? But I am sure you are thrilled with the results.


Another:

Quote:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people"
Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

redemption for all of God's elect was certain because of the covenant of redemption.

the grace was fixed before the world began....The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...

God deals with man by Covenant....not dispensationalism.

Okay, so that is at least two people who bring up dispensationalism despite the focus of the OP.

This fellow sees a distinction between Covenants and Dispensationalism, but apparently thinks all of the Covenants are the same.

And when he can show me a Covenant of Redemption in Scripture I will still show him that Eternal Redemption was obtained by Christ's Work on the Cross.

One of you will have to show me "Eternally Redeemed on credit."

So apparently I have a new talent, derailing my own thread,

There is nothing new under the sun.

by pointing out what the OP, who is me, intended this thread to be.

Actually the intent of the thread was an effort to gain support in your confusion and irritation at not being able to address my points.

Satisfied?

I guess I am not allowed the luxury of pointing out what my own post is about.

Actually, no, your not.

You want support for your rejection of my statement...

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

...then my suggestion would be you need to first understand it.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

If that is true...why haven't you addressed my posts?

So far it seems all you have put into it is a quick google search. Great. Just don't get upset when the fact that no-one was eternally redeemed prior to the Cross interferes with what you want to believe. Don't get upset that this point destroys the concept that saved and redeemed are equivalent throughout Scripture.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

Again:

Concerning your first statement:

It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

When the Lord provided the first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, blood was shed.
How much did Adam and Eve understand about the atoning sacrifice of Christ at that time? (I have asked these questions before).

When Abel offered sacrifices to the Lord (and Cain rebelled) how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did they understand?

When Noah sacrificed unto the Lord how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?

Salvation has always been by faith. Abraham was justified by faith.
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

We are justified by faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Salvation hasn't changed. We are saved by faith.
One can only be saved by faith if it is faith in the revelation they have received at that time. Adam through Israel put their faith in Jehovah, not the revealed Christ, the second person of the trinity that shed his blood on the cross, as we did. They did not have that revelation.

Salvation is by faith.

Your second statement:
You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
--False, and a red herring.
The red herring is dispensationalism which has nothing to do with this.
You brought up the Church; you brought up the redeemed in the OT. You brought up the fact the DC said there is a difference. If there is a difference it must be proven why and how. Your statement implies there is a difference between the Church and the OT saints. Don't say you didn't bring it up. No one but you and Icon said anything about dispensationalism. We had to defend against it. You (and Icon) derailed the thread.
--You can call this the central tenet of dispensationalism; you are entitled to your opinion. That is not what I believe. Of course many of you who have come out of hyper-dispensational churches have some pretty weird doctrines that you attribute to dispensationalism as I am finding out. You attribute a political movement "Zionism" to dispensationalism, which is ludicrous. Never heard of such a thing. But this is what I find out from my opponents of "what I am supposed to believe." Hilarious!

You guys want to tell me what I believe, and yet don't have a clue. Amazing!

I had no intention of ever responding to you again, DHK

{ Faith in WHAT?WHO? I have seen Muslim boys that have more FAITH than the average Christian in this country.

But since you are so negative I would remind you of a few passages of Scripture:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Every person that has ever been saved or will be saved is saved only because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ FIRST promised in Genesis 3:15! }

And those are my final words to you!

 

[Darrell C]

Decided to run back through the thread and address the posts I did not address in order not to intrude. But, might as well.

redemption for all of God's elect was certain because of the covenant of redemption.

No-one has said it wasn't.

the grace was fixed before the world began....

No-one said it wasn't.

What was said is that it was not until Christ died that Eternal Redemption was obtained for us. And that through the Blood of Christ...not the animal sacrifices that were part of the Prior Economies.

The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...

We know that, but you are trying to argue that a "Covenant of Redemption" that you have imagined is somehow the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

Look at your words:

The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...

No kidding...that is what you have been arguing against.

When were the promises made? When were they fulfilled?

Show me Eternal Redemption in the Old Testament.

God deals with man by Covenant....not dispensationalism.

If you mean the Theological System...no kidding. You and your buddies are the ones arguing that, and frankly...it gets old.

Try addressing my response to the OP and you might work yourself out of that confusion and the necessity to create doctrine as you go.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Crossway has put the ESV out in a version they call the "Gospel Transformation Bible" which talks about the Gospel in each book of the Bible. Had a copy but gave it ti a grandson who is teaching a SS class of young people.

The sacrificial death of the Redeemer is first promised in Genesis 3:15. The Bible is the story of the Grace of GOD as HE works in history to bring about the salvation of HIS Elect!

Yes......the promised seed is the promise all have looked for as in Gen 4:26....God hath appointed me another seed.......God saved all who had God given faith in this promise.
They did not have to know all the particulars. ...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, no one will get to heaven without the shed blood of Jesus Christ. You look at the cross as an one time event, and it did happen in time, but it has eternal consequences. His blood covered the sins of those who died in faith pre-cross, as they were looking towards Christ and His redemptive work of the cross. We look back at the cross. It was a one time event in time that covers all the sins of all His sheep, pre- and post-cross.

Again?

You were in error the first time you posted. Do you think posting the same thing twice makes it true?

So make up your mind, it happened in time? Or it didn't?

Show me where His "blood covered the sins of those who died in faith pre-Cross."

Where is your Scripture?

How do you ignore the many passages which show that they were not redeemed prior to the Cross?

How do you have people who only offered up animal sacrifice...already eternally redeemed?

It was a one time event in time that covers all the sins of all His sheep, pre- and post-cross.

Sorry, no.

It was the grace of God that did not exact the penalty of sin, but allowed them to await Eternal Redemption through Christ.

Address the Scripture:


Hebrews 9:12 & 15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


After you show how this does not mean that Eternal Redemption was obtained when Christ died, I have many more for you to explain.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This proves my point....you are without understanding concerning the Covenant of redemption....you have no idea.....


22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

What were the gentiles grafted into????
gal3
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The simple question is...don't you see that Gentile Inclusion was not manifest in that day? That this promise was fulfilled when Christ made one of the twain?

And you don't see that as a different Age? Different Ministry?

And I see no "Covenant of Redemption here," could you point that out?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You can remain in denial.....Lk 1 speaks of the Holy covenant;;;


Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham

So you believe the New Covenant was established in those Economies?

And by the way, this makes it clear God will fulfill His Promises.

Also...



Luke 1:54-55

King James Version (KJV)

54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.



Now who does Mary say He has helped?

Is this Spiritual Israel?

The Holy Spirit has him prophesy about the Covenant as it was passed on to ABRAHAM

"Passed on to Abraham?"

There was no Abrahamic Covenant prior to the Abrahamic Covenant being established.

You can read about when it was established here...


Genesis 15:8-18

King James Version (KJV)

8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:



Now, one last question here...Who is the Seed?

The same Holy Spirit has Paul tell us...the heathen gentiles were always part of the gospel as revealed in the Abrahamic covenant....

But they were not part of the Mosaic Covenant.

That is the distinct difference the Lord made sure you could understand.

Read Hebrews. Read Galatians.

connect the dots.....or not:wavey::wavey: the rest of us believe it:thumbs:

I doubt there are more than a few who subscribe to such sloppy theology that cannot distinguish a Bible Basic such as the Covenants being distinct to themselves and the periods they are found in.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by DHK
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.
Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

So you are a follower of Abraham and he is your father?

Paul "fathered" many children through his ministry, so does that mean that he replaced Abraham for them?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by DHK View Post
Yes. Luke was the one doing the writing. Zacharias was the one doing the speaking. He was, in fact, prophesying of the ministry of his son, John the Baptist--nothing to do with NT Gentile believers. He was speaking of Israel, and specifically mentioned the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Israel, himself as an OT prophet and the coming of his son, John, the last of the OT prophets.
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.
He is speaking of Israel all throughout. The "us" refers to Israel, and no one but Israel. You are in denial to that fact. This is before Christ was even born. There was no "church" at this point in history. It didn't even exist. This is still an OT "dispensation." It is a time when they are under the law, and not under grace. Later when John would be born, and when Jesus would be born, both mothers would respectively go to the priests and offer sin offerings on behalf of their own selves. Why? Christ had not yet died and shed his blood, or paid the price.

Paul in writing to the Gentiles at Corinth uses the term our father's in 1 Cor 10....showing a continuity of the covenant promises with gentile inclusion.
The Holy Spirit is not bound by your dispensational charts or teaching....there was law and grace in the OT . there is law and grace in the NT. .....guess what....there is even conscience in every age as well.....lol

All of the promises of God will conclude in the Eternal State.

Doesn't mean we're there yet, does it?

So too, the promises made to Eve, Noah, Abraham, David, the Levitical Priesthood, Israel, and those who are now being inducted into the Church...were not all fulfilled in the same Age.

You completely ignore most of what is said, but I will point out this statement again for you:

There was no "church" at this point in history. It didn't even exist. This is still an OT "dispensation."

Where is the Church in the Old Testament? How do you remove the People of God, Israel, since a large part of Scripture is devoted entirely to that people?

DHK also made the statement...

We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.

Now, will you state plainly whether you consider yourself a follower of Abraham or not?

Is Abraham your father?

Tell me plainly.

And how in the world does Paul mentioning the fathers address what you are responding to? Make or even support your view?

Here is a reference to the fathers which shows a difference between the Covenant they were under and the one we are under...


1 Corinthians 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


Were you baptized unto Moses?

But wait...why weren't they baptized into...Abraham?

Please tell me plainly.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

I had no intention of ever responding to you again, DHK

{ Faith in WHAT?WHO? I have seen Muslim boys that have more FAITH than the average Christian in this country.

Yes. Some Muslims have great faith. But some questions must be asked about their faith.
1. What is their faith based upon.
2. Who or what is their object of their faith.
--We all have faith; every man has faith. The most important factor, especially in salvation, is the object of faith. If Christ is not the object of one's faith then he cannot be saved.
If the gospel (death, burial and resurrection) is not the basis of our faith, one cannot be saved. We know our faith (that is the message) is true because of the absolute fact that Christ rose from the dead. It is no myth; an absolute historical fact that cannot be refuted. Our "faith" (message) is based on the resurrection.

Islam's faith (message) is based on the Koran. Unlike the Word of God the Koran is not inspired. It has been changed. When it was changed all other copies were destroyed. The visions of "Gabriel" were once thought by Muhammed himself to be demonic, and indeed they were. The Koran contains contradictions when compared with the Bible. How therefore can it be an inspired book. Yet this is the basis of their faith.
This is what they base their faith on.
What is the object of their faith? The object of their faith is the promises that are given to them, whether through the Koran or the Hadiths. The promise is given to them that if they die as a martyr they are guaranteed paradise.
On what basis can they believe that? They have no basis to believe it. There is no reason to believe that promise is true. Unlike Jesus promise to us, who backed up his words with the resurrection, the Muslim has no reason, no basis to believe that promise. It is not a faith that is based on reason, rather it is blind faith--unreasonable.

But since you are so negative I would remind you of a few passages of Scripture:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The first Messianic promise in the Bible.
When this promise was given to Eve was Eve able to understand the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ? No. She did not have that much revelation given to her. This promise looks forward to Christ, but it doesn't give all that much revelation about Christ.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

The word gospel simply means "good news," and in this context it does not refer to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What does it refer to then?

(YLT) and the Writing having foreseen that by faith God doth declare righteous the nations did proclaim before the good news to Abraham--
How were the nations before Christ saved? The same way Abraham was.
He was justified by faith. That is exactly what the verse says.
Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith. The object of Abraham's faith was "Jehovah."

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

This is Paul's NT missionary ministry. Check the book of Acts. Everywhere he went he went to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. Salvation is by faith. The salvation message that Paul preached was to be accepted by faith. It was to "those that believed:" whether they be Jews or Greeks.

Every person that has ever been saved or will be saved is saved only because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ FIRST promised in Genesis 3:15!

Every person that has ever been saved has been saved by faith in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself to them.
This is the way salvation is presented according to the NT.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--This is true for Abraham and for us. It is true for all. We are all justified by faith. That is what salvation is all about. Adam and Noah knew nothing of the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they were saved. They were justified by faith. Please read Hebrews chapter eleven.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by DHK View Post
I don't have any dispensational charts, and I don't deny that there is a conscience within every man. What would make you think I would? Again, you show that you don't know what I believe simply because you want to debate a book, not a person. You make assumptions instead of dealing with reality.

Luke 1:73 cannot be taken out of its context. Why are you so desperate to do so. What has the prophesy of Zacharias concerning his son, John the Baptist, have to do with the Apostle Paul writing a letter of rebuke to carnal Christians in the church of Corinth more than 60 years later? Absolutely nothing!
This has nothing to do with dispensationalism or covenants. It has to do with the context of the passage. Zacharias's prophesy has nothing to do with 1Cor.10. Period!.

This kind of fragmenting the scriptures that you and your system do is why you hold to much error.......Scripture is not detached fragments and random thoughts like individual BB's in a bucket.
The scriptures cannot be broken......you brought up where Luke wrote about the fathers..you claimed it was for Israel only......I show where Paul tells gentiles that these same father's were theirs also.....you claim it has nothing to do with it.....lol....it was the same Israelite father's that he links with the gentiles.....

By the way.....this I do not know what you believe excuse has already worn thin...lol
Anytime you are called on your dispensational musings you deny it....how convenient.

What are the 7 dispensation Dhk?.....are you going to de n y you have ever heard such a thing
Is that where you are going with this.....when we zero in on the target....you move it:laugh:

Go ahead tell me you have not seen a dispensationalist chart....lol

Again we see the purpose for participating in this thread...a terrorist campaign against a System.

Why bring up how many dispensations there are? What does that have to do with the focus of the thread?

Who moved the target?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Fragmenting of Scripture. You do it all the time. But yours is more along the line of this common example that we all have seen so many times.

In trying to find the will of God the lady decided to open her Bible randomly and put her finger at whatever verse her Bible opened up to. In her first try the Bible opened up to:
1. Judas went out and hung himself.

Not encouraged by that as God's will for her life she tried a second time.
2. Go and do thou likewise.
Oh my!!

A third time she tried.
3. What thou doest do quickly.
--Now she was terrified. What was God telling her? What should she do?

Perhaps the Lord is telling people like Icon not to butcher the scripture as he does; to look at the context; not to sew a verse here, and a verse there; here a verse; there a verse; a patchwork of random verses.


What you are admitting here is that you would rather debate a book than a person. Sad!

Yeah just like I thought you have no real answer so you resort to all this other nonsense typical

Definitely the kettle calling the pot black.

You are the one who has completely, in a few short pages, derailed the topic so as to obscure and fulfill your own agenda.

Here is another invitation to address my response to the OP.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
But he gave us you to do everyone else's?

It took a while but you finally got something correct!

lol

God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you are a follower of Abraham and he is your father?

Paul "fathered" many children through his ministry, so does that mean that he replaced Abraham for them?

Abraham is the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11).
Abraham trusted God and looked forward to the Seed that should come of whom Isaac is a type. God credited his faith as righteousness and so he is the father of all who trust in Christ for salvation (cf. Gal. 3:16). Yep! I'm a follower of Abraham and he is my father in the faith (Gal. 3:7-9).
'Father' and 'son' in Greek and Hebrew are synonymous with 'ancestor' and 'descendant' (cf. for example John 8:39; Mark 10:47). Therefore being Paul's son in the faith as Timothy was (1 Tim. 1:2) does not preclude Timothy from also having Abraham for his father.

God bless

You too! :godisgood:

 

[percho]

So you are a follower of Abraham and he is your father?

Paul "fathered" many children through his ministry, so does that mean that he replaced Abraham for them?


God bless.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


I think or it is my belief, that means, one is, of the faith, of the Abraham, thus an heir.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church ( especially when you consider I was willing to grant that point for my argument) its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ.
But since DC went on to argue about Israel and the church being distinct that morphes this thread into talking about dispensationalism as only dispensationalist insist on the clear divide.

:laugh: Very well said......open and honest.
Some errant posters when they fail to address a response look to divert the attention away from their failing to give an real answer.

Honest confusion, maybe, but you contribute to it.

As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church

As the original target I can tell you that this thread is about the difference between Israel and the Church.

You two just haven't picked up on it yet.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not eternally redeemed until Christ died.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not have the Atonement, hence all of the sacrifices they were commanded to effect for atonement.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not under the New Covenant.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not trust in the Shed Blood of Christ which is required for relationship with God under New Covenant standard.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not confess that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not aware of the Hidden and Secret Wisdom of God, the Mystery of the Gospel.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not know that Christ being a Covenant unto the Gentiles referred to Gentile Inclusion because that too was a Mystery.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did die in faith...

...but they were not made perfect in regards to remission of sins.

I could go on, but, maybe you get the point(s).

Some have an agenda and when it is exposed they try and revert back to the junior high school .....you did the same thing only worse rationalization :laugh:

No, we are witnessing that they don't try...they do revert.

So now we have a cry of.....you are derailing a thread, by correctly identifying the root source of my error........but I do not want you to use the term that correctly identifies my error:laugh:

You are derailing the thread and have been asked several times to address the topic.

But you have nothing to prove to me, right?

I agree, because this entire thread is the typical pattern of your little club, and it is primarily for you guys to try to prove to yourself that your theology is correct.

Let me help you with that: it isn't. So save some of those smilies, Iconoclast, you are going to need them if you ever come to understand what is actually in view in this thread.

If you really want to laugh....think back on how very often,maybe even everyday the same poster brings the term Calvinism into a thread that is not about that....hypocritical to the max.

I am beginning to suspect that you guys are paid by the Staff to bring comedy relief.

Believe me, the laughs are appreciated. But couldn't you just actually debate the points of the thread once in a while?

This has been brought up before...so now we have that Jr high defense being offered...lol
As the original poster you do not see this as derailing the thread as you correctly identify the elements being discussed.

You say this, so why haven't you addressed my posts in which I defend my statement?

its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ

Not one person has tempted to do that?

And you talk about Jr. High?

Why would someone b e ashamed of what they believe and answer the questions posed to them?

Because no-one wants to discuss your fascination and hatred of Dispensationalism, that's why.

After being told that repeatedly you still have no clue?

You are answering the questions posed to you?

Do you think BW that perhaps they panic because they cannot do anything else?

How does addressing your posts in detail only to receive no response express panic? lol

Israel is spoken of as 5 different things in scripture. ....it blends into the ISRAEL of God...by the Covenant of redemption. ....

No, Iconoclast, Israel was the People of God under the Law.

It is the promises of God which are progressively revealed through the Covenants.

The Law was in large part a picture of the Redemption of Christ, but that was it...a picture. A shadow. A Parable.

It was not the reality, and that reality has been revealed in Christ...alone.

Not in the Mosaic Covenant, not in the Davidic Covenant, but in Christ and the New Covenant.

no getting around it.....people before Israel was a nation.....the elect among national Israel.....and believing gentiles.....all the elect from all time saved eternally by the blood of the cross.....

I agree, but not until Christ died.

That is a primary part of the distinction between Israel and the Church.

No man died eternally redeemed before Christ died and obtained eternal redemption for us.

It's very simple:

Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Cancel your subscription to Dispensationalist's Anonymous and start reading your Bible for a change.

no matter if they looked forward to it (the promise of the seed).....or look back to it.....nice and simple.

Great. Show me one person that trusted in the Gospel of Christ.

I'll make it easy for you, you can pick through everyone that sat under Christ's Ministry. Search the disciples and see if you can find someone that trusted in Christ's death.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.
The OP reads this way:

Note: Not one mention is made of dispensationalism. Your hatred of it can't stop you from berating it every time you get the chance. Thus you are simply derailing the thread.

There is a difference between the those under the law and those under grace (when Paul planted NT churches). Israel existed under the law. She was God's chosen people at that time. Christ came. She rejected Christ as her Messiah. She even rejected Paul as God's messenger. Thus Paul said: "From henceforth I go to the Gentiles."

Paul still prayed for the nation of Israel. Therefore the nation of Israel still existed. The Church never replaced Israel, nor is it an extension of Israel. They are totally separate one from the other. Paul would be deluded to pray for something that does not exist (Rom.10:1-5; 9:1-5). All the attention of the world is focused on that tiny parcel of land now called the nation of Israel. To deny its existence is to deny history, and the current state of affairs today.

This has been answered many times but you do not welcome the answer....
What you did not answer is simple......

Why did Paul address the gentiles in 1 Cor 10 and tell them their spiritual father's in the faith were from Israel.....:laugh::laugh:...simple question...give it a try

Where do you see that in 1 Corinthians 10? That these fathers were "spiritual fathers?"


1 Corinthians 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Nope, not there.

And not sure if what you are reading from has this...

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


I have a Spiritual Father. And it is not this lot, as you claim for yourself.

Let's see another passage on your spiritual fathers...



Hebrews 3:7-12

King James Version (KJV)

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.


18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.



How are these "spiritual fathers?"

Please explain.

And I will ask again...were you baptized into Moses?

Please answer the question.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

As the OP can we please stop complaining that this thread has gotten off topic. As far as I the OP is concerned the only post off topic are those complaining that it's gotten off topic. Thank you.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
There has not been an address of the topic.

Israel was not eternally redeemed by the Blood of Christ, the Church is.

And while the Old Testament Saints who were of faith were perfected at that time, there is still not Scriptural support to the view that they were eternally redeemed before the Atonement was accomplished..

The simple point is that Israel was the People of God, and it is not exclusive to those who were of faith, and children of Abraham. Despite that designation, they still awaited Messiah, which is so basic in our understanding of Israel, and prevalent in the Gospels, that is it incomprehensible how one could miss that.

There are many posts you can address, but you simply derail the topic, once again, and try to further your terrorist activities against a Theology System which does not hold exclusive rights to the understanding that God ministers differently in different periods:



Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


What this means is "God spoke through Prophets then, but is now speaking unto us by His Son."

The implication is that the speaking unto us is different than God's speaking unto previous Economies.

Basic.

Prove you are not simply disrupting and address my first response to this thread.

Have to get going, but look forward to that address.


God bless.

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.

How does saying that unbelievers are "spiritual fathers" address the OP?

What it does is again point to your confusion.

And it raises a great question: were you baptized into Moses?

And what about your poor father Abraham, have you forsaken him?

I will continue to ask you this as long as you participate in this thread...until you answer.

He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....

So explain how the Holy Spirit "used the fathers?"

He did use them as an example of...

...what not to do.

revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

He was the only one willing to delve into your rabbit trail.

No-one has denied that Gentile Inclusion has always been God's intent.

What you are denying is that Gentile Inclusion did not begin until Christ made the twain one.

No-one has denied that Gentiles had people of faith, and that they were secure in their eternal destiny, but they were excluded from Israel.

Israel had Twelve Tribes, and those Tribes made up Israel. A Gentile was not of Israel. A Samaritan was not of Israel.

And just to cinch that point...



Matthew 10:5-6

King James Version (KJV)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Matthew 15:23-25

King James Version (KJV)

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[/SIE]


Now if the Lord distinguished between Israel and Gentiles and Samaritans...don't you think it's a good idea we do the same?


Continued...